Respectful Research for DS1 – 07.17.2018

This is a reading and writing response for Tuesday, July 17, 2018.

Topic: Conducting Respectful Research & Ethics in Educational Research

Title: Power and collaboration in research

Power dynamics are a consistent concern in research, particularly Indigenous research. Issues in power can by mitigated with a collaborative research design and an ethos of reciprocity. The idea that research should encompass collaborative relationships between researcher and participant is highlighted by today’s readings and extended by the conversations held in class.

Collaboration is defined as the “action of working with someone to produce something.” (Oxford Online Dictionary). Collaboration in research encompasses conversations and mutual decision making, seen in the design, planning, and execution of the research project, since it is premised on the belief that it is a good thing, an approach that is “infused with a friendly, respectful air” (Goldstein, 2000, p. 517). When researchers fail to balance power with participants, it is necessary, through conscientious scrutiny (Goldstein, 2000) to examine the “judgement errors, human shortcomings, and the myriad problems that accompany interactions among people” (p. 528) in order to diminish the “risks accompanying silence” (p. 528) in collaborative research. Having a clear operationalized definition of collaboration beyond a set of related terms or a deep desire to be seen as a collaborative researcher (Goldstein, 2000) is an essential researcher’s task, explicitly stated within the “complexities and subtleties of this research design” (p. 519). Goldstein (2000) discusses the ethical and methodological challenges that complicate the “ethical heart of collaborative research” (p. 517) in order to move beyond the fear inherent in “discussing the relational difficulties encountered in fieldwork” (p. 528).

Collaboration is identified as a key part of the eight principles in Indigenous research (Castellano, 2004, p. 111). Collaboration, as a means of distribution of power, is seen in the shift in Indigenous research where individuals, communities and researchers are “challenging the assumptions of research rooted in a scientific world view that clashes with their concepts of reality and right relationships” (p. 112).

Guishard (2009) explores participatory action research (PAR) in an attempt to “address histories of exploitation, surveillance, and social exclusion that frames collaborative research practices “with and not just on, or for subordinated people” (p. 85) and dynamically distribute power in the research. Guishard (2009) offers “cautionary theoretical levers to researchers exploring social consciousness in contexts with high levels of injustice” (p. 103) in order to inform collaborative researchers about the “contradictions and incoherent data” that can come from PAR. Guishard (2009) also cautions researchers to be explicit about their “assumptions and position to the people they are theorizing about/or with” (p. 103) to ensure power dynamics are made evident and transparent in the research design and reporting. In doing so, researchers will respect “the spirit of Freire’s imaginings and hopes for critical consciousness” (p. 103) and shift power dynamics in collaboration with whom they research.

What we’ve been learning about qualitative research brings to mind not so much the image of a ‘dark side’ as Goldstein (2000) suggests, but more of a shadow side. There are compounding and complicating issues as each of the authors from today’s readings suggest – power differentials and relationship appear to be at the top of the potential list of shadows that can impact qualitative research. It’s interesting that qualitative researchers are able to share these shadows openly as cautionary tales for others – I wonder if quantitative researchers are equally forthcoming in their reports of issues and challenges with their research ‘methods’.

These readings heightened my awareness of my vulnerability as a novice researcher who intends to apply qualitative methodologies to my work. I hadn’t put myself into the shadow, but now realize these authors are writing to me specifically, cautioning me directly. Those errors of the heart that so distressed Goldstein (2000) could be my errors. Those contentious and vulnerable moments Guishard (2009) speaks about could be my moments. Would I willingly write and share those moments with others as these two authors have done? The driver analogy shared in class reminds me that I think I’m a good driver, but statistically I’m only a moment away from an accident. I won’t intend to be caught in the shadows when completing my research, but statistically I will. This cautionary tale is potentially my heart of darkness. To Goldstein (2000) and Guishard (2009), I say thanks for this ‘awakening’.

References

Castellano, M. B. (2004). Ethics of Aboriginal research. International Journal of Indigenous Health, 1(1), 98.

Goldstein, L. S. (2000). Ethical dilemmas in designing collaborative research: Lessons learned the hard way. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 517-530.

Guishard, M. (2009). The false paths, the endless labors, the turns now this way and now that: Participatory action research, mutual vulnerability, and the politics of inquiry. The Urban Review, 41(1), 85-105.

Collaboration. Oxford Online Dictionary. Retieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/collaboration

Image attribution: Photo by Denys Argyriou on Unsplash